I am a bit confused as to what the logical difference here is between git cherry master upstream and git cherry upstream master. I get that it former is probably the more correct one to apply, but I don't exactly get why the list is much longer the other way.
Say I have two branches master and feature. Now let's say that I have commits in feature but I also have some commits in master that I want in feature and vice versa, but can't (or won't) merge these two branches. The way to go about such peculiar management nightmare would be to cross-cherry-pick the commits I needed.
As a result, why do git cherry feature master and git cherry master feature produce different results and is there any way to get a complete and reliable list of the discrepancy between these branches?